Harvard Divinity School

Thessalonica's Patron: Saint Demetrius or Emeterius?

Author(s): David Woods
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 93, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 221-234
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510028 .
Accessed: 22/09/2012 09:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
Thessalonica's Patron: Saint Demetnus
or Emetenus?

David Woods
UniversityCollege Cork

The publicationof a revised version of James Skedros's doctoraldissertationon

the origin and developmentof the cult of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, the al-
leged site of his martyrdom,duringthe early andmiddleByzantineperiodsis most
welcome in itself, but it also invites renewed attentionto an old problem.l What
was the origin of the cult of St. Demetius at Thessalonica?It is the purposeof this
articleto offer a fresh solutionto this problem.

Xg The Problem
The problem,briefly put, is the lack of early evidence for the cult of St. Demetrius
at Thessalonica. The earliest surviving martyrology,the so-called Syriac Bre-
viary, dates to 41 1 and is based on a Greek original which seems to have been

lJames C. Skedros, Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki: Civic Patron and Divine Protector 4th-
7th Centuries CE (HTS 47; Harrisburg:Trinity Press International, 1999). A summary of the
dissertation may be found in HTR 89 (1996) 41s11. The book provides a thorough and long-
overdue review of the growing, mainly foreign-language literature on this subject. Skedros is to
be commended for the speed with which he has revised his dissertation and the readability of the
final result. The appendices containing translations of two of the key sources will prove particu-
larly useful for students. One minor criticism is that it does not contain a map of late antique
Thessalonica such as may be found, for example, in H. Torp, "Thessaloniquepaleochretienne. Une
esquisse," in Lennart Ryden and Jan Olof Rosenqvist, eds., Aspects of Late Antiquity and Early
Byzantium(Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 4, 1993), 113-32. It is
inconvenient also that Skedros never refers to his primarysources by their listings in the standard
catalogues for such texts, either in the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina (Subsidia Hagiographica
6; Brussels:Societe des Bollandistes, 1898-99) or in Fran,coisHalkin,ed., BibliothecaHagiographica
Graeca (Subsidia Hagiographica 8; Brussels: Societe des Bollandistes; 3rd ed., 1957).

HTR 93:3 (2000) 221-34

222 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

composedat Nicomediaca. 362.2This containsmanyentriesfor martyrsor groups

of martyrswho died in the wider Balkanregion, but fails to mention a Demetrius
martyredat Thessalonica.3Furthermore,he receives no mention either in the
so-called Hieronymian Martyrology, which seems to have been composed in
northernItaly sometime during the period ca. 431-50. This is not particularly
surprising,however, since this martyrologyseems also to have depended on a
version of the Greekoriginalof the Syriac Breviaryfor most of its knowledge of
the easternmartyrs.Nevertheless,this absenceimplies not only thatSt. Demetrius
did not die in Thessalonica,but that whateverit was that was responsiblefor his
cult there probably occurred after ca. 362. Skedros circumvents these conclu-
sions on the basis that the Syriac Breviary,or its Greek original rather,did not
constitute a full and comprehensivelist of the martyrs.He concludes, therefore,
that there was a historicalDemetriuswho was martyredat and buried within the
very walls of Thessalonica,at a site on or nearwherethe Churchof St. Demetrius
was erectedduringthe early fifth-century.4For whateverreason,the editorof the
SyriacBreviaryhad simply neglected to include his name. To illustratehis point,
Skedrosdrawsour attentionto the fact thatthe Rotundaat Thessalonicacontains
an inscription,datingto the second half of the fifth-century,which preserves the
name, profession, and month of celebrationof fifteen martyrsand that three of
these Leo, Onesiphoros,and Therinos remain unknown either to the Syriac
Breviaryor the IlieronymianMartyrology,or so he claims.5In fact, the Therinos
of the inscription,whose feast fell in July, is probablyidentifiablewith the Tirinus
whose feast the Syriac Breviary records on 7 June.6Asfor Onesiphoros,whose
feast the inscriptiondates to August, his association with Porphyriusproves that
he is identifiable with the martyrwhom the later Greek synaxaries celebrate on
16 July and who has his ultimateorigin in the Onesiphorosnamedby St. Paul at

2G.B. de Rossi and L. Duchesne, eds., Acta SS 65: Novembris2.1 (Brussels: Societe des
Bollandistes, 1894) L-LXIX.
3For example, it includes two entries for Thessalonica (Pronto and three others on 14
March; Chionia and Agape on 2 April), two entries for Salona (Domnio on 11 April; Septimius
and Hermogenes on 18 April), one entry for Bononia (Hermas on 30 December), and four
entries for Sirmium (Irenaeus on 6 April; Demetrius on 9 April; Secundus on 20 June; Basilius
on 29 August).
4Skedros, Saint Demetrios,14-17.
5Ibid., 13-14. The inscription, from the Rotunda in Thessaloniki, is most conveniently
found in Hippolyte Delehaye, Les originesdu culte des martyrs(Subsidia Hagiographica 20;
Brussels: Societe des Bollandistes, 1933), 231-32. Skedros appears to slip when he claims
that it contains 14 rather than 15 names.
6There is a serious problem in the text of the SyriacBreviaryat this point. It attributes a
large number of martyrs to June (from 6 June onward), which the HieronymianMartyrology
and other sources prove to have belonged to July instead (from 6 July onward). The result is
that it omits the names of the martyrs whose feasts really fell after 5 June.
 DAVID WOODS 223

2 Tim 1:1S18.7 Hence he is a fictitious martyr.This leaves only the soldier Leo,
whose feast the inscription appearsto place in the month of March. But what
evidence is there that he was a genuine martyreither? In the absence of such
evidence, the existence of his cult at Thessalonica ca. 450 proves not so much
that the Syriac Breviaryand the HieronymianMartyrologydo not preserve a full
list of martyrs,but that the creation of fictitious martyrswas a growing occur-
rence by the middle of the Elfth-century.
This having been said, one can still sympathizewith Skedros'sbasic argument,
that these earliest martyrologiesdo not necessarily preservea full list of martyrs.
He has merely chosen the wrongexamples in orderto illustratehis point.Unfortu-
nately, however, he has to prove not so much that these martyrologiesdo not
preservea full list of martyrs,a point which most scholarswould probablyreadily
concede, but that they do not preservea full list of martyrseven by their limited
standards.It is noteworthy,for example, that the Syriac Breviaryrestrictsits no-
tices to martyrswho, for the most part,died in majorurbancenters,even provincial
or diocesan capitals,so thatone suspectsthatmuch of its informationwas derived
from local metropolitansources. One must still, however, question whetherthese
sources recordedall the martyrswho died at their centers or merely those whose
cult continuedto be celebratedat these centersbecause they had been buriedthere
also. Simply provingthe Breviary'somission of the name of some martyrwho had
died at some more obscurelocation would not, therefore,confirmSkedros's argu-
ment, unless, of course, it noted the existence of other martyrsfrom the same
location.Even then it would be preferableto prove not merely thatthe martyrhad
died there,but thathe had been buriedthereas well.8 In brief, Skedrosmust prove
thatthe Syriac Breviaryomits the name of a martyrwhose feast was celebratedat
a similarlyearlydate, if not at Thessalonicaitself, then at a comparablemetropoli-
tan center,preferablyone for which it lists othermartyrs.This he has failed to do.
As Skedros reveals in his frank discussion of the problem, the majority of
modern scholars do not accept the existence of a historical St. Demetrius who
was martyred for his faith at Thessalonica.9 Instead they follow the hypoth-

7As noted by Delehaye, Les origines, 232.

8Porexample, the encomium that Gregory of Nyssa delivered in honour of the military martyr
St. Theodore of Euchaita on 17Pebruary380suggests that he was a genuine martyrand that the
SyriacBreviaryoughtto have includedhis name.In general,see ConstantineZuckerman,"Cappadocian
Pathersand the Goths," TravauJcet Memoires 11 ( 1991)473-86,esp. 479-86.This omission might
seem all the more noteworthy in that he was actually executed at the provincial capital at Amasea
and the Breviary does include one entry for martyrsat Amasea (Philanthes and three companions
on 18August). But Theodore was buried at Euchaita, and there is no evidence that his cult was
celebrated at Amasea by the time of the composition of the Greek original of the Breviary ca. 362.
9Add the article by Alexander Kazhdan and Nancy Patterson Sevcenko ("Demetrios of
Thessalonike," Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium [3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press
1991] 1. 605) to the other modern sources cited by Skedros, Saint Demetrios, 12-13.
224 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

esis best advancedby the BollandistHippolyteDelehaye,who, in responseto

the absenceof a Demetriusof Thessalonicafromthe earliestmartyrologies,
soughtto identifyhiminsteadwiththeDemetriuswhosemartyrdom at Sirmium
the Syriac Breviary recordson 9 April.Morespecifically,he claimedthatthe
cult of St. Demetriusof Thessalonicahaddevelopedas a resultof the transla-
tion to Thessalonica of some relics of St. Demetrius of Sirmium.lThis
hypothesishadtwo greatadvantages.First,it explainedthe unusuallocation
of the centralcult-site for St. Demetriusat a prominentlocation within the
wallsof Thessalonica.SincetheRomansdidnotallowburialswithinthe walls
of theircities, Christianshad alwaysburiedtheirdead, includingtheirmar-
tyrs, in cemeteries outside the cities, so that it was there- outside the
walls thatthe martyrialchurcheshad normallydeveloped.Unless one as-
sumesthatsomethingveryunusualhasoccurredin thecase of St. Demetrius's
churchat Thessalonica,the naturalassumption,basedon its location,would
be that it had not in fact developed over the original burial site of St.
Demetrius.llThe secondadvantageto the hypothesispositedby Delehayeis
that it explains why successive bishopsof Thessalonicawere never able to
produceany of St. Demetrius'scorporealremains.l2They could not because
theyhadneverpossessedanyto beginwith.Theirchurchwas not in fact built
over the burial-siteof St. Demetrius,even thoughthis was whatthey cameto
believe in time, and,one assumes,the originalrelics aboutwhichthe cult had
developedmust have consistedof contact-relics,items which had allegedly
come intocontactwiththe martyr'scorporealremainsratherthana portionof
these remainsthemselves.Finally, one must add that the so-called Passio
alteral3 identifiesone of the relics aboutwhich the cult was centeredas an
orarium, a neckscarf.In so far as this hadformeda partof the deacon'svest-
mentssinceat leastthe latefourthcentury,l4andtheIlieronymian Martyrology
specificallyidentifiesSt. Demetriusof Sirmiumas a deacon,this does lend
some furthercredenceto Delehaye'shypothesis.This is not to claim thatthe
original St. Demetriusof Sirmiummust have owned such an item, or that
suchan itemcouldhavesurvivedeven if he hadownedone. Nevertheless,by

lHippolyte Delehaye, Les legendes gresques des saints militaires (Paris: Picard, 1909)
106-08.
"Skedros (SaintDemetrios,14) appears to accept the explanation offered by BHG496 for
the burial of St.Demetrius within the city, that it simply did not occur to anyone to remove his
body for a proper burial outside the city.
'2Skedros, Saint Demetrios,85-88.
'3BHG497 in Halkin, ed., BibliothecaHagiographicaGraeca, 153.
'4Its use is attested by canons 22 and 23 of the Council of Laodicea (exact date disputed).
See, for example, Karl Joseph von Hefele, Histoiredes concilesd 'apresles documentsoriginaux
(trans. Henri Leclercq; 16 vols.; Paris: Adrien Le Cerf, 1870) 2.151-52.
 DAVID WOODS 225

the end of the fourth century, had someone made what seemed a sufficiently
authoritative claim, many Christians would readily have accepted the identi-
fication of such an item as a genuine contact-relic; such was the nature of the
age.
Unfortunately,althoughDelehaye's hypothesis suffers disadvantagesas well,
this has not preventedits widespreadadoption.The first of these disadvantagesis
that it does not explain how the cult of a deacon was transformedinto the cult of
a militarymartyr.As Skedros notes, there is not the slightest hint in the existing
evidence relating to St. Demetrius of Thessalonica, whether literary or icono-
graphical,that he was ever identified as a deacon.l5The second problem is that
this interpretationdirectlycontradictsthe literaryevidence.Accordingto the Passio
altera, when a prefectof Illyricumby the name of Leontius reinvigoratedthe cult
of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica by building a new house for his relics, he then
took some of these relics to Sirmium.l6 Hence the literarytraditionproves the
transferof the cult from Thessalonica to Sirmium,not vice-versa. One could, of
course, imagine a scenario by which some relics of the deacon St. Demetrius of
Sirmium were translatedto Thessalonica only to develop a new identity and be
re-translated,in part at least, back to Sirmium in their new guise as relics of the
military martyrSt. Demetrius of Thessalonica. Yet the more complicated one's
hypothesis,andthe poorerone assumesthe existingevidenceto be, the less credible
it becomes also. Instead,the modernconsensusis thata simple errorhas occurred,
that the names of Sirmium and Thessalonica were accidentally switched at an
early stage in the literarytradition,so thatthe presenttale of the translationof the
relics from Thessalonica to Sirmiumpreservesthe memory of a genuine transla-
tion of relics but in reverse form.l7Skedros's approachto this tale is even more
drastic.He concludes that"thestory of the transferof the cult of St. Demetrios to
Sirmiumthroughthe efforts of the prefect Leontius is simply the creationof the
anonymousauthorof the Passio altera"and seeks to explain its creationby refer-
ence to the long-standingcivic nvalry between SirmiumandThessalonicaalready
in place at the beginning of the eighth century.l8Yet he also admits that the cult
of St. Demetrius of Thessalonica did eventually subsume that of the deacon St.
Demetrius even in Sirmiumitself, and accepts that the translationof some relics
of St. Demetriusof Thessalonicato Sirmiummust have played a large partin this
process.l9Hence he finds himself in the position of denying the translationof

5Skedros, Saint Demetrios, 17.

Passio altera (BHG497) chs. 15-16.
I7MichaelVickers, "Sirmium or Thessaloniki? A Critical Examination of the St. Demetrius
Legend," ByzantinischeZeitschrift67 (1974) 337-50.
'8Skedros, Saint Demetrios,26.
I9Ibid., 28.
226 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

relics from Thessalonica to Sirmium as attested by the literarytradition,while

assuming a similar such translationat some undeterminedlaterdate that has left
no trace in the traditionwhatsoever.

Xg A Fresh Solution
It is important at this point to provide a brief summary of the relative merits
of the surviving accounts of the martyrdomof St. Demetrius. There survive
three short accounts of Demetrius's martyrdom, which are said to represent
the "shorter version" of his martyrdom.These include two Greek passions-
an anonymous text and a text compiled by Photius of Constantinople (in his
Bibliotheca dating ca. 855)-and one Latin text, also known as the Passio
prima, which Anastasius Bibliothecarius sent to Charles the Bald in 876. There
also survives a "longer version"of his martyrdomrepresentedby a sole, anony-
mous Greek text, also known as the Passio altera. As its name suggests, the
latter text contains many details absent from the three texts representative of
the so-called "shorterversion," but both versions report the same sequence of
events and agree in all essentials. Therefore, what is the relationship between
the two versions? It had traditionally been assumed that the "longer version"
is an embellishment of the "shorterversion," but it has recently been argued
that they are merely differently abridged versions of a more extensive
narrative.20If this is the case, one cannot simply dismiss the additional details
appearing in the "longer version" as late, fictitious additions to an original
tradition. There is no obvious way of deciding which is the correct interpreta-
tion, so it is important to highlight that in what follows next I assume the
latter interpretationto be true.
To begin, therefore, I want to draw attention to the identity of the relics of
St. Demetrius as reported by the Passio altera. It reports the existence of two
contact-relics immediately after the execution of Demetrius, his orarium, or
neckscarf, and his ring:
In this way was the all-gloriousmartyrput to deathhavingfulfilled the
witnessof a good confession.Loupos,a servantof St. Demetrios,after
takingpropercare of the body, took the saint's neckscarf(o opaplou)

having collected his blood in it. [13] Taking also the royal ring (o
aolAlKow SaKTuAlou), which the saint was wearingon his hand, and
dipping it in his holy blood, Loupos was able to accomplishmany
miraclesof healingthroughit.2l

20See Skedros, Saint Demetrius, 60-70, on Aristotle Mentzos, To 1rpoaKuvpa TO-U'Ayfou

tpnTpiou ievaaRoviKnsaTa,BuCavTlva xpowla(Athens:Center for Byzantine Studies, 1994).
2'BIIG 497, chs. 12-13. I follow the translation of Skedros, Saint Demetrios, 153, except
that he transliterates opaplov as orarion.
 DAVID WOO DS 227

Unfortunately,the Passio does not recordwhat happenedto these relics later,after

the execution of Loupos in turn, the burial of Demetrius, and the ending of the
persecutionof Christians;but the orariumdoes make a second appearancewhen
the Passio records the identity of the relics which the prefect Leontius took to
Illyricumafterhis miraculouscure at the shrineof St. Demetriusin Thessalonica:
Deciding to departfor Illyricum,Leontios wanted to take with him
some of the relics of the martyrin order to place them in a church
which he built there in the saint's name. However, the all-glorious,
victoriousone of Christappearedto Leontios at night and prevented
him from taking his relics. Leontios, therefore, took the martyr's
chlamys,which was drenchedin the saint's blood, as well as part of
his neckscarf.He made a silver reliquaryand placed these prizedpos-
sessions in it.... Arrivingat Sirmium,he placedthe holy vessel with
the treasuresinside in the all-holy churchthat he had built there in
honorof the holy martyrDemetrios.22
Even if the story concerningthe initial survivalof Demetrius's orarium and ring
after his death is complete fiction, as I believe it to be, it was clearly designed to
providea provenancefor two such alleged relics. It provesthatat some point in the
cult of St. Demetrius,the churchat Thessalonicapossessed an orariumand a gold
ring which it believed to have belonged to Demetriushimself.23
Next, I wantto emphasizethe unusualnatureof these relics. No othermartyris
said to have left such a combinationof relics.24It is not a hagiographicalcommon-
place. The only time one comes across something similar is when one reads the
poet Prudentius'saccountof the miracle that precededthe deaths of the Spanish
militarymartyrsEmeteriusandChelidonius.25He bemoansthe loss of the records
of the trialof these martyrs,but then resumes:

22BHG497, chs. 16-17. Translationfrom Skedros,Saint Demetrios,154.

23Skedros' s positionon thesecontact-relics
remainsunclear.He accepts(SaintDemetrios,66-
67) thatthe storyof theiruse as preservedby thePassioalterawasprobablyin circulationby the
earlyseventhcentury,whenbishopJohnof Thessalonicacomposedhis MiraculaS. DemetrEi, but
he doesnotmakeit clearwhetherhe acceptsthattherelicsthemselveshadeverreallyexisted.On
the whole, it does not strikeme as very convincingthatany Christiancommunityshouldhave
preservedsomeformerpossessionsof a martyrwhilelosingtrackof whereexactlytheyhadburied
the martyrhimself.Knowledgeof the exact locationof the martyr'sburialoughtto have been
passeddownthroughthe samechannelsas the possessionsthemselves.
240fthe militarymartyrs,the AfricanmartyrSt. Typasiusleft a shield(scutum),whichwas
usedto markhis grave,andthefaithfulusedto tearpiecesoff it for use as relics(Passio Typasii
7). A fictitiousmartyr,his cultonlydevelopedca. 397. See DavidWoods,"AnUnnoticedOfficial:
ThePraepositusSaltus,"ClassicalQuarterly44 (1994) 245-51. Nothingsimilarcanbe foundin
the acts of any of the othermilitarymartyrs;for example,Christopher, Fabius,Florian,George,
Marcellus,Maximilian,Menas,Theagenes,or Theodore,fictitiousor not.
25JohnPetruccione,"PrudentiusUse of MartyrologicalTopoi in Peristephanon,"(Ph.D.
diss.,Universityof Michigan,1985),58-59, comparestheappearance of anorariumin Prudentius's
228 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

One honourat least is not hiddenfrom us nor wanes throughlapse of

time, how the offeringsthey sentup flew off throughthe air to show, as
they went shiningon before,thatthe pathto heavenwas open. A ring
(anulus), representingthe faith of the one, was camed up in a cloud,
while the other,as they tell, gave a neckscarf(orarium) as the pledgeof
his lips, andthey werecaughtup by the windof heavenandpassedinto
the depthsof light.The glint of the gold was lost to sightin the vaultof
the clearsky, andthe whitefabricescapedfromthe eyes thatsoughtlong
to followit; bothwerecarriedup to the starsandseenno more.Thissight
the gatheredbystanderssaw, andthe executionerhimself,andhe checked
his handandstoodmotionless,blanchingin amazement: butin spiteof all
he carriedthe strokethrough,so thattheirgloryshouldnotbe lost.26
and it is highly likely
Prudentiusis our earliestsourcefor this pairof martyrs,27
thatthey never existed.28For whateverreason, a shrineto two martyrs,Emeterius
and Chelidonius,developed at Calagurrisin HispaniaTarraconensis,and, writing
sometimebefore 405, Prudentiusseems to have to do his best in orderto flesh out

account of Emeterius and Chelidonius to the description of the use of "handkerchiefs" to bind
the eyes of those about to be executed in other martyrial accounts. To refer to his
examples, however, bishop Cyprian of Carthage's eyes were bound with laciniae manuales,
not an orarium(Acta Cypriani5.5 ), as were the eyes of his fellow Carthaginian Montanus
(MartyriumMontaniet Luci 15.2). While it is true that Julius's eyes were bound with an
orarium(Passio Juli 4.4), he was a military veteran and may well have continued to dress in
military style, with an orarium,after his retirement, unless his military executioner gave him
his own out of sympathy for a fellow soldier. The important points here, however, are, first,
that neither Emeterius nor Chelidonius use the orariumto bind their eyes and, second, that
none of these sources associates the "handkerchief" with a ring. There is no real comparison
with the texts mentioned, and the presence of the orariumis not a martyrological topos. The
above texts may all be found in Herbert Musurillo, ed., TheActs of the ChristianMartyrs
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
26PrudentiusPerist. 1. 82-93. Translation from H. J. Thomson, ed., Prudentius(LCL 2
vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953) 2. 105-7, with the exception that he
translates orariumas "handkerchief." The description of the dress of a typical late fourth-
century imperial guard in the poem The Visionof Dorotheus(1.332) reveals that the orarium
was worn about the neck. See Jan Bremmer, "An Imperial Palace Guard in Heaven: The Date
of the Vision of Dorotheus," Zeitschriftfur PapyrologieundEpigraphik75 (1988) 82-88.
27Ingeneral on Prudentius's sources for his Peristephanon, see Ann-Marie Palmer, Prudentius
on the Martyrs(Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) 227-77, esp. 237-79.
28Hehas based his description of their dress and status on the dress and status of imperial
guardsmen in his day. See, for example, Michael Speidel, "The Master of the Dragon Stan-
dards and the Imperial Torc: An Inscription from Prusias and Prudentius's Peristephanon,"
TAPA115 (1985) 283-87. On the donation of gold rings by late antique emperors to higher
ranking soldiers at least, see Ida Malte Johansen, "Rings, Fibulae, and Buckles with Imperial
Portraits and Inscriptions," Journalof RomanArchaeology7 (1994) 223-42. Although it does
not directly affect my argument in this note, I believe that Prudentius was inspired to describe
Emeterius and Chelidonius as imperial guardsmen by his reading of, if not the passion of
 DAVID WOODS 229

some very thin materialon this subject,despite his own Spanishorigin.29Several

things immediatelystrikeone aboutthe above incident.First, it receives a dispro-
portionateamountof attentionwithin its poem. AlthoughPrudentiussparesonly
sixty-threelines (11.31- 93) for his main subject,his narrativeaccountof the mar-
tyrdomof Emeteriusand Chelidonius,he then spends twelve of these (11.82-93)
on the miraculous ascension into heaven of the orarium and ring. Would not a
lengthy accountof theirenduranceundertorture,for example, have provedmuch
more inspiringfor any audiencehad Prudentiusmerely wished to stretchout his
materialin some way? Second, it is the only miraclein his accountof theirmartyr-
dom and standsin starkcontrastto Prudentius'ssober, althoughsomewhatvague,
account of their lives and final trial together beforehand. Next, the fact that
Prudentiusinterruptshis narrativeto bewail the loss of the records of their trial
immediatelybefore he returnsto his descriptionof the ascension of the orarium
and ring and the final execution of the martyrsserves to emphasize his critical
approachand to reassurehis audiencethatthey can accept his claim in this matter
at least. He then attemptsto reinforcehis credibilityfurtherby specifically noting
that therewere bystanderswho saw this miracle, as well, of course, as the execu-
tioner himself (1. 90). Finally, the whole episode runs counterto what one might
expect to find at this juncturein a martyraccount.The narratorusually describes
how or why certainrelics managedto survive,not how they disappearedfor good.
In brief, this passage reads as if Prudentiusis trying to disprove the continued
survivalof the orariumandring of Emeteriusand Chelidonius,as if he is arguing
in directreply to a claim to this very effect.30
It is importantat this point to highlight the differences between Prudentius's
accountof the ascension of Emeterius'sand Chelidonius's orariumand ring and
the Passio altera 's accountof the survivalof Demetrius'sorariumandring. There
are no similaritiesbeyond the identitiesof these objects themselves. There is no
sign thatthe authorof the Passio altera has been influenced in any way by some
knowledge of the martyrdomof Emeterius and Chelidonius. Indeed, given the

Sergiusand Bacchusitself, anotherpairof militarymartyrs,then of a commonsourcewhich

describedthe trialof two militaryconfessorsunderthe emperorJulian(360-63). See my paper
"TheEmperorJulianand the Passionof Sergiusand Bacchus,"JECS5 (1997) 335-67.
29Hispoem on Emeteriusand Chelidoniusis the first of a collection of fourteenpoems
dedicated to various individual martyrsor groups of martyrs,known collectively as the
Peristephanon. Palmer(Prudentius, 88) arguesthat Prudentiuswrotethe poems at different
stages in his career,andonly broughtthemtogetheras a collection at a laterdate. Insofaras
Prudentiusrefers to poetrydedicatedto the martyrsin his Praefatio, which he wrote in the
57th year after his birthin 348, it is usually assumedthat he composedthe Peristephanon
before 405.
30Thestrengthof its impactuponthe readeris illustratedby the fact thatit is this passage
thatGregoryof Toursquoteswhenhe describesthese martyrs(Liber in gloria martyrum 92).
230 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

geographicalseparationof the two cult centers at Calagurrisand Thessalonica,

thatthe authorof the Passio altera wrote in Greekwhile there is no evidence that
any documentsrelatingto the cult of Emeteriusand Chelidoniuswere ever trans-
latedfromLatininto Greek,andthatthe cult of EmeteriusandChelidoniusenjoyed
relativelylittle success even in the LatinWest, one would be surprisedto discover
otherwise.
To summarize,the Passio altera proves the existence of an orariumand a ring
at the center of the cult of a militarymartyr,Demetrius, at Thessalonica, while
Prudentiusseems determinedto deny the authenticityof an orarium and ring as
the relics of the militarymartyrsEmeteriusand Chelidonius.Could these be the
same items? Noting the similaritybetween the names Emeteriusand Demetrius,
the possibility suggests itself thatone has resultedfrom a misreadingof the other.
So the identicalnaturesof the two pairs of relics, the similaritiesof the names of
Emeteriusand Demetrius,and the fact that both were militarymartyrs,all com-
bine to raise the question of whether the cult of St. Demetrius has its origin in
some misunderstandingconcerning the presence of some alleged relics of St.
Emeteriusat Thessalonica.
When,or why, would anyoneever have botheredto translatethe relics of a pair
of relativelyobscuremartyrshalfway across the Romanempire,from Calagurris,
or thereabouts, to Thessalonica? The answer, perhaps, lies in the rise of the
SpanishgeneralTheodosiusI (379-95) to the throneof the easternRomanempire
andthe rushof clients, relatives,andformeracquaintanceswho inevitablyflocked
to his court.3lOne notes thatTheodosiusmadeprolongedstays at Thessalonicaon
two occasions. It servedas his headquartersandmainresidenceimmediatelyafter
the westernemperorGratiancrownedhim as his easterncolleague at Sirmiumon
19 January379, from shortly before 17 June 379 to shortly after 16 November
380.32It also servedthe same purposeagainduringthe winterof 387/88. Given the
lengthof his stay at Thessalonicaduringhis first visit there,and its significance at
the startof his reign, one is inclined to identify it as the most likely occasion for a
Spanish hanger-onto have arrangedfor the translationof the alleged relics of
some Spanishmartyrsthere.33More importantly,the fact that the relics were de-
posited at Thessalonicaratherthansent on aheadto Constantinoplesuggests that
the person ultimatelyresponsiblefor their translationhad been underthe impres-
sion that Thessalonicawas going to remainthe emperor'smain residence, the de

3'In general, see Robert Malcolm Errington,"The Accession of Theodosius I," Klio 78
( 1996) 438-53 .
32See Otto Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fur die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr.
(Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1919) 251-55.
33For a detailed study of Theodosius's activities and intentionsat this period,see RobertMalcolm
Errington,"Churchand State in the First Years of Theodosius I," Chiron27 (1997)21-72.
 DAVID WOODS 231

facto capital, and this could only have been the case duringTheodosius's earliest
stay there. By the time he or she discovered otherwise, it was too late. The local
churchnow had possession of the relics and was not preparedto partwith them.
But why identify an imperialhanger-onas the authorof this translation,and not
the new emperorhimself? Given the fact thatPrudentiuswas one of the beneficia-
ries of the new regime, it is difflcult to believe that he would have attackedthe
authenticityof the orarium and ring as martyrialrelics, had it been Theodosius
himself, or a memberof his immediatefamily even, who had arrangedfor their
translation.34
Therefore,it is my argumentthata personor personsunknownarrangedfor the
translationof some alleged relics of Emeteriusand Chelidonius,an orarium and
gold ring, to Thessalonica during Theodosius's earliest residence in the city in
379-80.35 Indeed, if the traditionaldate for the celebration of the feast of St.
Demetrius,26 October,marksthe deposition of these relics in their new shrine,
then one should probablydate this event to 379 ratherthan 380, since it should
have been obvious by 26 October 380 that Theodosius intended to transferhis
residenceto Constantinopleinstead.36The translationof the relics provedpossible,
despite the disturbedpolitical conditions the fact that variousbarbariangroup-
ings controlledmost of the Balkans becauseThessalonicawas a thrivingseaport.
However, there was some controversy over the authenticityof the relics; and

34SeePalmer,Prudentius, 24-31. Prudentiuswas provincialgovernortwice before being

promotedto a post at the imperialcourt.Unfortunately,he does not revealof whichprovinces
he was governor.Nor does he reveal the natureof his appointmentat the court. Jill Harries
("PrudentiusandTheodosius,"Latomus 43 [1984] 69-84), arguesthatthe lack of references
to the Eastin Prudentius'poetrysuggeststhathe attendedthe courtonly whenTheodosiuswas
in theWest(388-91). Itdoesnotseemlikelythathe himselfhadeveractuallyvistedThessalonica.
3sIngeneral,see E.D. Hunt,"TheTrafficin Relics:SomeLateRomanEvidence,"in Sergei
Hackel,ed., The Byzantine Saint: University of Birmingham 14th Spring Symposium of Byz-
antine Studies (London:Fellowshipof St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981) 171-80. It is worth
notingthatthe praetorianprefectF1.Rufinus,who createda shrineat Chalcedonfor the relics
of Peterand Paul, whichhe had acquiredduringhis visit to Romein 389, was fromElusa in
the provinceof Novempopulanain south-westernGaul, a shortjourney across the Pyrenees
from Calagurris.Unfortunately,we know nothingconcerninghis careerbefore his appoint-
mentas magister oJ5ficiorumin 388, buthe mustemergeas a strongcandidatein any attempt
to identifythe authorof the translationof these relics fromSpainto Thessalonica.His assas-
sinationon 27 November395, and subsequentdisgrace,might well explain why Prudentius
daredto attackthe authenticityof these relics in the way he did. On the pious activities of
manyat Theodosius'scourt,see JohnMatthews,Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court
AD 364425 (Oxford:Clarendon,1975) 12745.
36Theearliest evidence that 26 Octoberwas celebratedas the feastday of St. Demetrius
occursin the Miracula S. DemetrEiby bishopJohn-ofThessaloniki(ca. 610 49). See Skedros,
Saint Demetrios, 10-11, who seems inclinedto acceptit as the genuinedateof his martyrdom,
while Vickers("Sirmiumor Thessaloniki?,"349) identifiesit as the dateof the translationof
the relics of St. DemetriusfromThessalonicato Sirmium.
232 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

Prudentius'saccountof the ascension of Emeterius'sand Chelidonius's orarium

and ring into the heavens reveals thathe came to belong to the faction that denied
their authenticity.This controversymay itself have served to stuntthe growthof
devotion towardthese relics among the local populationat Thessalonica;but the
decision of Theodosius to relocate his couit to Constantinopleso soon after the
initial arrivalof the relics in Thessalonica surely proved fatal to the success of
their cult since it removed the Spanish courtiersand their families upon whom
they would initiallyhave dependedto spreadthe news of theirpowers. In this way,
the cult of SaintsEmeteriusandChelidoniusat Thessalonicawas almostdestroyed
at birth.The shrinethatheld theirrelics neverprosperedas it ought to have done.
To makemattersworse, relativelylittle hadbeen knownfor sure aboutthe martyr-
dom of Emeteriusand Chelidonius,except that they were soldiers who had died
for theirfaith,even at the startof this attemptto transplanttheircult to Thessalonica.
Hence, as the years slowly passed, there was a vacuum that allowed the local
populaceto imagine what they would aboutthe origin of these relics.
We now returnto the accountsof the reinvigorationof the cult of St. Demetrius,
as he came to be called, in both the "shorter"and "longer"versionsof his passion.
Both versions agreethatit was a prefectof Illyricumby the nameof Leontiuswho
was responsible for the growth of the cult of St. Demetrius. According to the
"shorter"version:
Leontius,the god-belovedman,while occupyingthe seat of the prefec-
ture of Illyricum,cleanedout and clearedup the very small structure
enclosing the all-holy relics, since it had become coveredwith debris.
He then widened the area between the public bath and the stadium
where the structurewas located and erecteda church,bringingto the
city of the Thessaloniansa domesticmartyrand a citizen, as well as a
gloriouslyadornedchurchwhereone's prayerscouldbe heard.37
It is only the "longerversion"which explains why exactly he did this. He had
received an unexpectedcure at this site:
[A] certain man named Leontius, in charge of the prefecture of
Illyricum,while passing throughthe countryof the Dacians, acquired
an incurableillness. He was broughtby his kinsmento the city of the
Thessalonianson a litter,wherehe was placedin the sacredareawhere
the relics of the saint lie underground(aVEKX'I0 'EVTX OEaOplX OnKX,
EV0a tV UWOyU KE'IpEVOU TO-Uay'louTO XElaVoU). Immediatelyafterhe
was laid upon the healing tomb (TO-UslapaTofOpou pUqpaTos) he re-
gained his health. Both he and those roundhim marveledat the rapid
visitationof the martyr.Leontiosconfessedhis gratitudeboth to God
and to the all-gloriousmartyrDemetrios.Therefore,he immediately

37BAIG
496, ch. 8. Translation from Skedros, Saint Demetrios,157.
 DAVID WOODS 233

took down and cleaned aroundthe arched area of the kilns and the
caldarium,along with the public porticoes and taverns which were
OIKOU) dedi-
located there. Here he erected a holy house (aravaEarTow
catedto the martyrbetweenthe publicbathandthe stadiumandadorned
it abundantly.38
The most importantpoint, and one upon which both versions agree, is that
Leontius found the shrine of "Demetrius"in a state of neglect and disrepair.If
Leontiusis indeed identifiablewith the prefectof Illyricumof the same name who
held office ca. 412/13, as Skedrosandothershave argued,39then a penod of about
thirtyyears had elapsed since the first constructionof the shnne, accordingto the
above reconstructionat least. Hence it is entirely credible that Leontius did find
the shrinein a stateof disrepair.I suggest, therefore,thathe did not actuallyknow
the names of the relevantmartyror martyrswhen he initially visited their shrine
for his cure.40At that point, their names were irrelevant.What matteredwas that
there were relics present at the site (whateverthe exact natureof the site itself),
andthatthese had the power to effect a cure, as all relics were supposedto have. It
was only afterhis curethathe becamecuriousas to the exact identityof the martyr
to whose interventionhe owed his renewedhealth.He thus set aboutrestoringthe
site in the hope of discovering this martyr's name and found some inscription
which he interpretedto preservethe name Demetrius.The relics present, which,
upon opening their container,turned out to be an orarium and a ring, he then
attributedto this Demetrius.I suggest, therefore,that,deceived by its poor state of
repair,its partialpreservationeven, Leontiusmisreada longer inscriptionthathad
onginally been dedicatednot to a single martyrby the name of Demetriusbut to a
pairof martyrsby the names of Emeteriusand Chelidonius.If this inscriptiondid
not itself preserve some evidence that "Demetrius"had been a military martyr,
then local folk memory soon supplied this detail, which was correct, along with
much more.4lHence the origin of St. Demetnus.
Therefore,to summanze, an unknownperson arrangedfor the translationof
some alleged relics of Saints Emeterius and Chelidonius, an orarium and gold
ring, to Thessalonica, probably in 379. These relics rested undisturbedin their
shrine,which graduallyfell into disrepair,until a prefectof Illyricumby the name

38BHG497, ch. 15. Translationfrom Skedros,Saint Demetrios, 153-54.

39Skedros,Saint Demetrios, 29-37.
40Compare SulpiciusSeverus, Vita Martini 11.
4tThefact thatthe Passio altera (BHG 497, ch. 16) recordsthatLeontiustook as relics for
the churchat Sirmiuma chlamys as well as partof the orarium raisesa questionas to the origin
of this chlamys. Dareone suggest that,alarmedat the prospectof losing relics thathad only
just demonstratedtheirpoweronce more,some enterprisinglocals, cleric or otherwise,"re-
membered"that they also possessed Demetrius'schlamys, which they then fobbed off on a
gratefulLeontiusin an effort to retainmoreof the real things?
234 HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

of Leontiusreceived an unexpectedcure thereca. 412/13. He then cleaned up the

surroundingareaandbuilt a whole new churchfor the relics. Duringthe course of
this operationhe found an ill-preservedinscriptionwhich he took to identify the
martyr whose relics had cured him as Demetrius rather than Emeterius (and
Chelidonius).He also imposeduponthe bishopto open the reliquaryandgive him
a portionof the orarium,as well as a chlamys, which he deposited in a churchat
Sirmiumupon his returnthere.Despite what the Passio altera says, Leontius did
not actuallybuild a new churchat Sirmiumbut merely deposited the relics in an
existing church,very likely thatof St. Demetriusthe Deacon. This set in trainthe
confusion of the two Ss. Demetrii and the eventual extinction of the cult of St.
Demetrius the Deacon, which is itself the reason that the authorof the Passio
altera, or of its originalsourcerather,assumedthatLeontiushad built the Church
of St. Demetriusat Sirmiumas well as that at Thessalonica.
This reconstructionis speculative,of course, but no more so than the hypoth-
esis that currentlyholds sway, that St. Demetriusof Thessalonica is identifiable
with the St. Demetriusthe Deacon of Sirmium.It has the same advantagesin that
it also explains the unusuallocation of the centralcult-site for St. Demetriusat a
prominentlocation within the walls of Thessalonica,as well as why no one was
ever able to find his bones at this site. It also explains the natureof the contact-
relics about which his early cult seems to have centered,an orarium and a gold
ring. Furthermore,it has none of the disadvantagesof the currenthypothesis. It
does not requirethe transformationof the cult of a deaconinto the cult of a soldier.
Nor does it contradictthe literaryevidence thatreportsthe spreadof the cult from
Thessalonicato Sirmium,not vice-versa. Therefore,there is a strongcase for de-
tectingthe originof the cult of St. Demetriusof Thessalonicanot in the translation
of the relics of the deacon Demetriusof Sirmium,but in the translation,probably
in 379, of the relics of the militarymartyrsEmeteriusandChelidoniusof Calagurris
in Spain.